I’d also be interested in anyone’s impressions of these wines; I got a few bottles of their '99 Pommard Pezerolles from Brown Derby a number of years ago but, being both from Pommard and 1999, I haven’t tried one yet.
I visited the domaine last month. Old school for sure. Tasted 09s, 07s, 04s and 1978 Rugiens. Overall, I was impressed by the wines (09s very strong across the board, 07s quite good in the context of the vintage, 04s not my thing). These are mineral-driven wines that possess excellent purity of fruit and nice definition. That being said, they are rather taut when young and require bottle age.
I had the '98 Chaponnieres several times last year. I was very impressed with the balance and vitality of the wine. The price was ridiculous also, under $40.00
Meadows questions why they are not better known, but I’m glad they’re not.
In view of posts like this, let me expound upon the above: these are “mineral-driven” wines because they lack ripeness. Not sure precisely what “purity of fruit” means - the fruit is only red or only black? It only tastes like raspberries, with nary a hint of cranberry or pomegranate? is that a good thing? And what, pray tell, is “nice definition”?
Rather than give you marketing-speak euphemisms, let me speak clearly. I had ~4 bottles, a mix of older and younger vintages, of B-G, and the wines are not delicious. They are rustic - as fits the appellation - but not in a good way. They lack fruit and are the kind of wines that you can talk yourself into liking in an academic sense but fail the fundamental test of “is this tasty”. I personally avoid, but sure, try a few and see if YMMV. Don’t be a Burghound lemming - that’s how you end up with boxes of unwanted 04’s.
First off- not a BH lemming…did not learn about these wine from BH. A friend suggested I try them about 6 years ago.
The wines I tasted all were very pure. The fruit was pure- not under ripe or over ripe- that is what I meant sir.
They have nice acidity and cut- they are balanced wines…but require age. None of the wines came off to me as “rustic”. In fact I was surprised that the 07s were not more “rustic” or “hard”.
Just because you don’t relate to or understand my description of a wine, doesn’t make it a “marketing-speak euphemism”. It means you and I do not describe wine in the same way.
I have tasted a total of 24 different bottlings across 9 different vintages over the last 6 years; a few more data points than “~4” to make a generalized judgement. The vintages that I was not a fan of from this estate are: 00 and 04. The vintages that I think most highly of from this estate are 05,09 & 99.
It may mean you describe wine differently than me. Or it could mean you’re a bad writer, using language that has no place in describing how something tastes. “Focused” is the hipster wine geek’s “pan grille”.
The 99s are bad, and I’m confident a blind tasting would reveal that. OP can buy and make up his own mind - the wines are readily available (hmm, wonder why).
It may mean you describe wine differently than me. Or it could mean you’re a bad writer, using language that has no place in describing how something tastes. “Focused” is the hipster wine geek’s “pan grille”.
The 99s are bad, and I’m confident a blind tasting would reveal that. OP can buy and make up his own mind - the wines are readily available (hmm, wonder why).[/quote]
Thank you for the writing critique. I hope you and yours have a nice weekend.
Well this has been an amusing thread, especially the assertion “the wines are readily available” used as a criticism. That must mean Chandon de Briailles and Faiveley suck across the board (to pick two excellent producers with very different styles that are easily available). This domaine must be doing something right if they’ve been around since the mid-1700s continuously (as Jasper Morris claims).
Anyways I’ll pick up a bottle of theirs from K&L (2009) and drink it next week.
Get out of bed on the wrong side today? You don’t take someone disagreeing with you very well, do you? Not content with the casual insult “marketing-speak euphemism”, you double down with “bad writer”, and “hipster wine geek”. But why stop there? I’m sure you can come up with more ad hominem attacks on people who don’t take what you say as necessarily the last word on a subject.
A few of us drank the 01 and 02 Pommard Rugiens in a blind Pommard tasting last November. I thought the 01 was a bit more difficult to warm up to, but I really enjoyed the 02. I actually used the term “pure-fruited” in my tasting note–what was I thinking?!?
Well, it’s a pet peeve of mine when people use bullcrap language to describe wine. “Focused”? “Pure-fruited”? These are words that don’t mean anything. I mean, they can have meaning, in the sense that you can taste SOMETHING and call that “pure-fruited” and then use the word “pure-fruited” to describe that in future notes, but it doesn’t have any objective meaning that can be transmitted to others. What’s your definition of pure fruited? When is a wine “focused”? When does it have “definition”.
There are these faddish buzzwords people drop into tasting notes that, I think, are intended to signify sophistication but don’t have any real meaning beyond that. If someone says a wine is “pure fruited and focused”, we know the implied message - a connoisseur’s wine, for the Burgundy lover who drinks something more, how to say, “tasteful” than the fruity plonk loved by the hoi polloi. Hell, go whole hog and call the wine crunchy, and you’d make it move a little for half the board. Seriously, Steve Tanzer writes a note that says “pure crunchy fruit, focused, with terrific definition”, and people are backing up the truck at PC to take delivery in 2014. And those words mean NOTHING.